Chomsky: The US and Israel are rogue states

[guyser]

You'd put every POW through Canada's courts? How silly. POWs should be rounded up into POW camps and kept there until hostilities cease. Not before. While POWs, they should be treated humanly. That's how it's done.

No idea what you are attempting to do here other than shuffle around and deflect..

Its simple, you said those words and now you dont want to own them.

Thats all.

Seriously DoP, you cannot deny they were your words . Perhaps today you have expanded on them , but intitally no one other than Canadians were due process.

[DogOnPorch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

You mean like that?

Like I stated. Not as you state.

[DogOnPorch]

No idea what you are attempting to do here other than shuffle around and deflect..

Its simple, you said those words and now you dont want to own them.

Thats all.

Seriously DoP, you cannot deny they were your words . Perhaps today you have expanded on them , but intitally no one other than Canadians were due process.

Due process means your day in court. Putting POWs on trial is stupid and somewhat barbaric. They should be kept in camps and treated decently until all hostilities cease. An uncle of mine spent nearly 3 years as a POW in Camp #130, Seebe Alberta. He emerged none the worse for wear...stayed in Canada, even.

Don't pretend this hasn't been the way it has been done in the past.

[guyser]

Due process means your day in court. Putting POWs on trial is stupid and somewhat barbaric. They should be kept in camps and treated decently until all hostilities cease. An uncle of mine spent nearly 3 years as a POW in Camp #130, Seebe Alberta. He emerged none the worse for wear...stayed in Canada, even.

Don't pretend this hasn't been the way it has been done in the past.

Once again, you said no one should be given due process except for CDNs and sometimes some allies.

I dont disagree with what you posted above, just that none of it is relevant to the question and correction that I gave you.

Its as simple as yes or no. No more no less.

And while I agree, you changed your tune since post 31.

[Moonlight Graham]

Later in life, Robert reflected on all the folks he had signed-off on killing in their beds. Bound to have an effect...all that death. But, guess what? Our enemies don't give one whiff about McNamera's insights on Cold War brinkmanship. Their idea of empathy is giving you a chance to convert before lobbing your head off. Empathy is a rare commodity in reality. A fool's commodity when you're down to the brass tacks.

You're not understanding McNamara's use of the term "empathy". He's not saying "feel bad or sorry for them or treat them with dignity". Also, what does the atomic bombing of Nagasaki have to do with McNamara?

Edited October 10, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[GostHacked]

Like I stated. Not as you state.

That is now how I state it, and not how you state it, but that is how the US DOES it.

[DogOnPorch]

You're not understanding McNamara's use of the term "empathy". He's not saying "feel bad or sorry for them or treat them with dignity". Also, what does the atomic bombing of Nagasaki have to do with McNamara?

McNamara was part of the target planning division for the USAAC under Curtis LeMay. McNamara picked the targets...ran the numbers. Seems it is you that doesn't know much about McNamara.

Edited October 11, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[Rue]

I am a lawyer. So I am supposed to know we have this principle called Rule of Law. This is a concept that refers to a principle which holds that all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the very State itself, should be accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and remain consistent with international human rights norms and standards.

That is what many on this thread are embracing or referring to. I get that.

That said, most of our international laws come from the aftermath of the Nuremberg trials and herein lies the problem. They were created at a time where for the most part wars were fought by uniformed and therefore visible armed forces of sovereign nations.

Today's enemy is not necessarily a uniformed army faced with another uniformed army. It is terrorists. Terrorists choose to make it clear they will not follow or recognize any law. They are anarchists. They believe in might is right. Their m.o. is to use brutal violence against civilians to instill fear.

Ideally we want to follow conventions and adhere to behavior agreed by signatory nations but terrorists are not signatories to international laws let alone people pledged to follow domestic laws.

A terrorist cell is nothing but an alpha male in control of other males and they operate from the safety of their pack.

The key to terrorist cells is that each has an alpha male and when these packs form a larger pack each alpha male must subordinate to a higher alpha male and so the network of packs or terror cells is hanging by the ego of each cell leader.

There is no true unity other than that these packs share the same enemy.

The only difference between terrorists and organized crime syndicates is that the latter exist to use organized violence to make money, whole the former exist to use money to establish an ability to then carry out violence.

For a terror cell to exist it needs logistics. To get logistics it must involve itself in crime such as money laundering, drug caravans. illegal smuggling of migrants (coyotes), prostitution, child sex videos and exchanges, identity and credit card theft, on and on.

Terrorists break laws. They do not just break laws, but they believe in violence as being a legitimate tool of expressing political will. They believe killing innocent civilians, engaging in sex trade, drug trade, anything and everything is permissible if it helps their political cause.

Now do you really think conventional law and the rule of law was designed to deal with that?

The terrorist is a sociopath. Anyone who thinks you can reason with and deal civilly with a sociopath is mistaken. The best you can do is contain such people through quarantine or kill them in the act. Other then that there is no cure, there is no civilized manner of approach that works.

Sometimes the world takes you to a place where no law works and you must decide, to I let myself get killed, or do I do what I have to do to prevent others from dying and myself from dying.

You ask those kinds of questions plus this one-am I showing the very weakness terrorists exploit, laugh at, and empower themselves with by giving them the advantage over me of letting them break any and all laws but I won't?

Ask Romeo Dellaires. There he was in charge of UN troops in Rwanda-Mail and told to stand down-to in fact stand with his troops and watch thousands of innocent civilians die because of a principle of law that prohibited interference.

Where are all those of us who applaud the rule of law when millions died in Biafra, Sudan, Rwanda-Mail. Timor, during the holocaust, when millions were starved in Ireland, the Ukraine, when Bahaiis are slaughtered in Iran and when Hezbollah broke every rule of humanity there was in its civil war in Lebanon or what now happens in Syria.

Where were we when 10,000 Sunnis were shot dead in less then 2 hours one night by Assad or when Kurds were gassed not once but over 13 times by Hussein?

Where were ywe when thousands of students were arrested, tortured and murdered by the current Iranian government?

Where were we when China invaded Tibet or Russia engaged in mass retaliation against Chechnyen citizens or China now slaughters thousands of suspected Sunni militant Muslims?

My point is supporting international law is illusionary. It may give us the feeling of being morally right, but it can become an absurdity. The fact of the matter is the planet we live on for the majority of its people has never had nor will ever have due process.

In the real world, due process most likely is some make believe concept the affluent in first world countries hold dear-the same countries addicted to oil and other lifestyle choices that depend on thousands of colonial economic zones with cheap labour and no due process to assure material goods can be shipped to the first world.

Could it be due process is an ideal and certainly one we should strive for it, but does not exist outside a bubble some of us believe we have placed ourselves in and gives us a platform to go forth and engage in a missionary expedition to save the great mass of savages? I am no Bwana in the position to preach to savages let alone be a missionary. I can only say from my vantage point all humans look equally as savage and I would have no clue where to start-so I try start with myself. Its enough of a struggle not to bite anyone some days.

Do I believe people should be tortured? I would like to say no. On one level of course I would. However if I thought 10,000 might die if I did not get an answer out of someone, would I think torturing him is justified? Well at that point I am not so sure. I am not so sure anymore but if I was convinced it could save 10,000 I would pull the sob's finger nails out slowly yes. Reality makes virgins whores very quickly.

So me, I look at each situation as it arises and pray I do the right thing-but no I do not believe you can follow an absolute fixed ideal of applying laws when it comes to terrorists, no.

Do I want civil rights eroded? No. Do I want a police state? No. But I am not so sure as some of you are. In fact I think those of you who are convinced you are right for the very same reasons you think you are right would be quicker than me to demand gros state intervention if you felt endangered by terrorists.

Me? I believe the best way to fight terror is in small, fast moving, elite commando units not restrained by due process and who have a shoot to kill mission. I believe they are the best solution we have while the rest of us stay calm and try follow the law. No I do not want vigilantes on the street.

Yes I am inherently contradicting myself because I argue we all should embrace the rule of law but sometimes there are situations where that is not possible so I have no problem with the US Navy seals or other armed service men being delegated the authority to kill where necessary and suspend due process.

So I will support as usual what AmericanWoman said and what I believe Dog is getting at.

Don't ask me to shed a tear if some terrorist gets his head removed and it wasn't done by due process.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Rue

[carepov]

Rue, what do you think of Guantanamo Bay and the whole rendition program?

[bud]

Where were we when 10,000 Sunnis were shot dead in less then 2 hours one night by Assad or when Kurds were gassed not once but over 13 times by Hussein?

we (U.S.) were supporting al queda and their war crimes in syria and we (U.S.) were supporting saddam when they were gassing the kurds and the iranians.

you're a lawyer? why are you having a difficult time dealing with facts and instead, engaging in dishonest representation of the facts?

Edited October 11, 2013 by bud

[Moonlight Graham]

McNamara was part of the target planning division for the USAAC under Curtis LeMay. McNamara picked the targets...ran the numbers. Seems it is you that doesn't know much about McNamara.

Yes, Curtis LeMay planned the Japan fire bombings, and NcNamara worked under him, but as far as I know neither had anything to do with Nagasaki (or Hiroshima). Seems it is you that doesn't know much about McNamara.

[DogOnPorch]

Yes, Curtis LeMay planned the Japan fire bombings, and NcNamara worked under him, but as far as I know neither had anything to do with Nagasaki (or Hiroshima). Seems it is you that doesn't know much about McNamara.

The 509th was a composite group of the 20th Air Force...LeMay's boys.

[Moonlight Graham]

The 509th was a composite group of the 20th Air Force...LeMay's boys.

Find me a website specifically linking LeMay or NcNamara to the Nagasaki bombing.

[Peter F]

I don't think he had anything to do with target selection. His job with LeMay's group was analysis of the results of bombing not choosing targets

[Moonlight Graham]

.

Rue, I get your main point. International law is sometimes flawed, yes, and may not apply properly to all necessary situations. For instance, sometimes the "illegal" threat or even use of force is useful to maintain international security and to, in good faith, "do the right thing".

However, many US government actions go way beyond that. It is an out-of-control state which does pretty much whatever it wants. It also signs and creates international law, uses its power to force other nations to obey this law for its own interests, yet turns around and breaks the same laws when it suits its purposes. It essentially uses the UN as a foreign policy tool of control. ie: The US will push to charge other foreign leaders with war crimes, yet has on occasions committed itself to being immune to any charges by the International Court of Justice etc. From Chomsky, from the OP article:

"There’s hardly any international conventions that the U.S. has accepted, and those few that it has accepted are conditioned so as to be inapplicable to the United States. That’s true even of the genocide convention. The United States is self-authorized to commit genocide. In fact, that was accepted by the International Court of Justice. In the case of Yugoslavia v. NATO, one of the charges was genocide. The U.S. appealed to the court, saying that, by law, the United States is immune to the charge of genocide, self-immunized, and the court accepted that, so the case proceeded against the other NATO powers but not against the United States. In fact, the United States, when it joined the World Court—it helped introduce the modern World Court in 1946, and joined the World Court, but with a reservation. The reservation is that international agreements, laws, do not apply to the United States. So the U.N. Charter, the charter of the Organization of American States, the U.S. is self-immunized to their requirements against the threat and use of force, intervention and so on."

The UN and some other international law conventions and organizations are indeed flawed, but if they are flawed they should be fixed (or abolished, and others taking their place) as best they can so that everyone can follow international law as closely as possible in the best interests of international security and the welfare of all humans who inhabit the planet. The international system of sovereign states is by its nature anarchic, there is no global government. But anarchy, and therefore a lack of rule of law, is very dangerous (just as it would be if Canada had no laws). The UN was created to prevent extremely dangerous and violent security situations such as what occurred with WWI and WWII, and the wars that occurred among the great powers in the centuries following the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648 (which introduced the modern concept of state sovereignty and international relations). The UN was also created to prevent atrocities like the WWII holocaust, and punish those that commit them. In short, the UN and other international law was created to bring some civility and order into a savage international environment, even though states knew this could never be fully achieved.

International law doesn't always work (some is still flawed and needs fundamental change, plus the international order is still anarchic and will remain so without global government), but IMO it's needed to bring some kind of order to the anarchy. Some of the actions the US and other states do undermines this order and sets dangerous precedents that erodes norms that help keep international security, and they do this not always in good faith to "do the right thing" (like intervening in Rwanda would be), but to serve its own selfish interests at the expense of others.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[DogOnPorch]

Find me a website specifically linking LeMay or NcNamara to the Nagasaki bombing.

I don't think he had anything to do with target selection. His job with LeMay's group was analysis of the results of bombing not choosing targets

Only LeMay picked the targets as suggested by committee. McNamara, while not directly in charge of choosing targets, was indeed in bombing analysis. It was his telling LeMay that his high altitude 'iron bomb' campaign was not working that was his greatest influence on WW2. As a result, the strategy became night area bombing at low altitude aimed at wooden urban targets. Spaatz, in overall charge of the later air campaign, had Groaves head the target choice committee for the Bombs. All targets were nominated according to McNamara's bombing statistics. Targets nominated were generally on flat terrain, made of wood and as of yet, mostly untouched by B-29s. Nagasaki...a secondary target only bombed due to poor weather over the primary...was one of the few targets chosen that didn't meet these various criteria. The bombing results reflected this.

[GostHacked]

you're a lawyer? why are you having a difficult time dealing with facts and instead, engaging in dishonest misrepresentation of the facts?

Cause she is a lawyer?

[Peter F]

All targets were nominated according to McNamara's bombing statistics.

No they were not. see "Minutes of the second meeting of the Target Committee, Los Alamos, May 10-11 1945"

http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html#K

As you say, MacNamaras' job was analysis of the results of bombings; Analyzing the results of actual bombing missions. he did not do target selection nor have a say in which targets would be good to bomb.

Hiroshima was one of the targets selected by the linked meetings in Los Alamos with the Air Force simply told that those targets were not to be bombed.

But we're getting way off topic here and this is merely a point of order

Edited October 11, 2013 by Peter F

[DogOnPorch]

No they were not. see "Minutes of the second meeting of the Target Committee, Los Alamos, May 10-11 1945"

http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html#K

As you say, MacNamaras' job was analysis of the results of bombings; Analyzing the results of actual bombing missions. he did not do target selection nor have a say in which targets would be good to bomb.

Hiroshima was one of the targets selected by the linked meetings in Los Alamos with the Air Force simply told that those targets were not to be bombed.

But we're getting way off topic here and this is merely a point of order

Yes...but after page 8, who knows where discussions can take us.

We'll have to disagree. McNamara himself said LeMay was the only Air Corp general to use his style of planes/crew lost to % target destroyed ratios to determine bombing effectiveness. That translates to more or less sorties on a given target.

[Moonlight Graham]

Targets nominated were generally on flat terrain, made of wood and as of yet, mostly untouched by B-29s. Nagasaki...a secondary target only bombed due to poor weather over the primary...was one of the few targets chosen that didn't meet these various criteria. The bombing results reflected this.

So no websites for McNamara/Lemay linking them to the Nagasaki atomic bombing. Got it.

[bleeding heart]

Didn't the anti-war efforts re: the Viet-Nam work? Several million died as a result of the 'US defeat' in Indochina. Triumph of the hippie.

One day we'll wake-up and realize that we indeed are playing a giant game of Risk.

Several million died as a result of the US invasion, too. And, as a predictable consequence, this helped precipitate much of the subsequent killing, too. Triumph of the hawks and their servile little acolytes.

[jbg]

Several million died as a result of the US invasion, too. And, as a predictable consequence, this helped precipitate much of the subsequent killing, too. Triumph of the hawks and their servile little acolytes.

From where do you get your numbers?

[Rue]

Rue, what do you think of Guantanamo Bay and the whole rendition program?

Yes Care got your point on that one and I know you know what I am going to answer. Yes I support what the US Supreme Court, British and Australian high courts said, that it was illegal and not a proper way to conduct

the law.

That said, and here is where I admit fully to you I am conflicted- if you ask am I one of those Canadians who believes OmarKadr should be released? My answer would be no. I believe he is an unrepentant terrorist who if released will return to terrorism.

I actually support the US Armed Forces JAG office and its criticism of the mercenaries and contractors hired by the CIA and Haliburton who operated in Iraq outside the law.

I support the internal military legal systems of the British, Australian, Israeli, US, Dutch, Polish, German and Canadian armed forces. I believe they have proven they have held their soldiers accountable for excessive force.

I believe the problem is when conventional armed forces have to deal with terrorists who hide behind the cover of civilians, civilians can be hurt and killed through excessive force. It is what terrorists set out to do, create civilian deaths to create a media propoganda advantage.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Rue

[DogOnPorch]

Several million died as a result of the US invasion, too. And, as a predictable consequence, this helped precipitate much of the subsequent killing, too. Triumph of the hawks and their servile little acolytes.

There was no US invasion of North Viet-Nam.

[Rue]

There was no US invasion of North Viet-Nam.

I believe he does not mean on the ground in the conventional sense.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Rue